Indifference to the plight of the desperate

When a country or a people are starved of basic compassion, profit alone cannot ensure stability. Equally, toleration of savagery in one form can only breed greater savagery in many other guises. This is the abiding lesson surely that all great religions teach us.

Greater scrutiny required

Even during the grimmest conflict, Sri Lankans retained fundamental elements of the Buddhist, Christian, Islamic and Hindu teachings which prioritized humanity over every other concern. The evils that confronted us during war were endured as a matter of necessity. It is doubly ironic therefore that in the post-war years, we stand in the greatest danger of abandoning that humanity to our ultimate cost.

Such an absence of humanity is now clearly reflected towards those who have sought asylum here from persecution in their own countries. During the past month, brutal deportation of Pakistani asylum seekers, many of whom belong to the Ahmadiyya Islamic sect or are Christians, have gone virtually unnoticed. The deportations have been grossly inhumane, separating family members and lumping even the old and the sick in detention centres prior to deportation without adequate access to medical care and counselling.

In a laudable response to the frantic plea of one such Pakistani asylum seeker, the Court of Appeal issued interim relief this Friday suspending the Defence Ministry's deportation. And while the court matter will continue, this government's policies on deportations need to be subjected to stricter public scrutiny.

The ignoring of government assurances

One matter needs to be clarified first. The official spokesmen denied this week that the government had violated international conventions by the wholesale deportation of asylum seekers. Quite unashamedly the reason given was that Sri Lanka had not signed the 1951 U.N. Refugee Convention. Therefore, we were told that the country is not bound by the universally accepted legal principle of non-refoulement. This means that a state must not expel, return or extradite a person to another country where there are substantial grounds for believing that the person may be subjected to abuse.

Yet this claim completely bypasses the fact that the Sri Lankan State itself had assured the United Nations on numerous occasions that the principle of non-refoulement would be implemented by Sri Lanka to the fullest. One good example is the State response to the Conclusions and Recommendations of the United Nations Committee Against Torture (CAT Committee) after consideration of the second periodic report at its 671 and 674 meeting held on 10th and 11th November 2005 (CAT/C/LKA/CO/2/Add. 1).

In this instance, the CAT Committee had recommended that Sri Lanka 'review the Convention against Torture Act 22/94 and other relevant laws' in order to ensure complete compliance with the Convention, particularly in respect of policies relating to extradition, return and expulsion. In response to this concern, Sri Lanka unequivocally promised that such a principle 'could be given effect to under other laws such as the extradition law as extradition law contains well recognized restrictions to extradite.' It also declared that 'such obligation will also be given effect under the immigration law, as well as through administrative measures.'

Saying one thing and doing another

State policy now being implemented against helpless Pakistani asylum seekers is a direct refutation of these guarantees given with all solemnity before the United Nations not so long ago. These are not difficult lies to catch out. Yet at one level, the Janus-faced ability of the Sri Lankan State to state one thing and do exactly the opposite should not confound us unduly.

After all, this very same State had declared before yet another United Nations committee that impeachment proceedings of superior court judges would be amenable to judicial review. Regardless however, this government forged ahead with the impeachment of a Chief Justice in 2013 on the basis that Sri Lanka's President and Parliament were not answerable to the judiciary. In consequence, can we be surprised when so much skepticism and cynicism is exhibited in response to promises and assurances held out by us?

'Riddled with human rights risks'

Meanwhile, insult was further added to injury when the government claimed that Sri Lanka's return of Pakistani asylum seekers was similar to asylum seekers attempting to flee to Australia by boat and claiming persecution by the Sri Lankan government.

These are unfortunate comparisons to draw given the increasing storm of international condemnation over Australia's policies towards the disparagingly termed 'boat people.' A March 2014 report issued by the Melbourne based Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC) concluded that Australia's policies towards asylum seekers were 'riddled with human rights risks.' Its conclusions were based on detailed scrutiny of relevant policy and law, interviews with offi- cials, freedom of information requests and statements from the public record. It castigates 'deeply flawed' practices which return asylum seekers 'without conducting proper assessments as to their refugee status or monitoring their safety on return.'

Certainly this is the same critique applicable in regard to Sri Lanka's treatment of Pakistani asylum seekers.

Abandonment of humaneness not singular

But this is not singular. On the contrary, the absence of humaneness is reflected commonly in policy spearheaded by the Ministry of Defence which appears to have replaced the due and collective functioning of the government in major respects.

Thus we see the summary dismissal of Tamil civilians searching for their missing loved ones, the ruthless eviction of Colombo's poor, the systematic targeting of religious and racial minorities and the silencing of all dissenters. These are the expendables, reckoned to be of little consequence in an obscenely lopsided society. On the one hand, we have the bloated patronage system which operates on the principle of pure profit. On the other hand, we see culpable indifference on the part of many to the plight of the desperate, Sri Lankan or Pakistani as the case may be?

Is this the unenviable legacy that will be bequeathed to Sri Lanka's future generations? Are we to be a silent party to this inhumane process?